Ontological Tautology

[Terell Kirby]

Leo is really blowing my mind as of late -

‘You can’t defeat God with ‘x’ because ‘x’ is God’

x could be:

• science
• logic
• rationality
• religion
• atheism
• the Devil/Satan
• evil space monkeys
• Donald Trump 
• piles of cash
• corruption of all kinds
• skepticsm
• empirical evidence/ logical proofs
• Power/Sex

Can go on and on to infinity-anything we point to-there goes God. Reality must bend the knee God, which is to say God can only bend the knee to itself.

[Yimpa]

11 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Reality must bend the knee God, which is to say God can only bend the knee to itself.

 

[Leo Gura]

You can't destroy God because God created destruction.

[Scholar]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't destroy God because God created destruction.

God as defined as existence.

 

It will just be denied that God has the properties that you attribute to him, namely Love, Intelligence and so forth.

 

Can God choose not to create eternal separation and suffering? Would that not deny his Infinitude?

[Breakingthewall]

If God does not have the option of not being or of not creating infinite forms and infinite dimensions, then God is more than a slave to his own nature than a God. It simply is, inevitable. 

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Can God choose not to create eternal separation and suffering? Would that not deny his Infinitude?

God has the same scope of choice as you do about the rate at which your nails grow. God is infinite, therefore he doesn't choose, because choices are finite, since they exclude one possibility in favor of another.

God expands in all directions; he isn't a purposeful entity, because having a purpose excludes everything that doesn't further that purpose. Therefore, he would be finite. How long could he be finite in infinity? A few years? 😅And then what?

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

God has the same scope of choice as you do about the rate at which your nails grow. God is infinite, therefore he doesn't choose, because choices are finite, since they exclude one possibility in favor of another.

God expands in all directions; he isn't a purposeful entity, because having a purpose excludes everything that doesn't further that purpose. Therefore, he would be finite. How long could he be finite in infinity? A few years? 😅And then what?

Right but this means that hell exists and infinite torture of infinite beings for all of eternity with no return to the Godhead must exist.

[Breakingthewall]

35 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Right but this means that hell exists and infinite torture of infinite beings for all of eternity with no return to the Godhead must exist.

Everything that exists follows a positive direction, a push toward greater depth and greater synchronicity. This is so for the simple reason that if it weren't so, it wouldn't exist. No suffering is in vain. It's purpose is expansion. That is what god is, drive to be, expansion. Suffering and death are always a tool for more existence, and existence is glory in it's essence because it is 

Edited Saturday at 11:39 PM by Breakingthewall

[Scholar]

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Everything that exists follows a positive direction, a push toward greater depth and greater synchronicity. This is so for the simple reason that if it weren't so, it wouldn't exist. No suffering is in vain. It's purpose is expansion. That is what god is, drive to be, expansion. Suffering and death are always a tool for more existence, and existence is glory in it's essence because it is 

But then it's not infinite.

 

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But then it's not infinite.

 

Seems that what is has one direction: being. Its infinite in the sense that has not limits, but it's quality seems to be the expansion, only by elimination, because what does not have that push cannot emerge, because "emerge" is precisely that push, then everything that is has that positive push, because if it hasn't, it wouldn't be 

Then yes, god exists, is that push in it's totality, but it's choice is always the same: being. Just because the other choice isn't , then god is just inevitability 

Edited yesterday at 12:16 AM by Breakingthewall

[integral]

On 2025-03-29 at 0:09 AM, Leo Gura said:

You can't destroy God because God created destruction.

If destruction is 2nd order imagination, that means God is not all powerful because God cannot destroy itself.

Existence is Absolute.

Non-Existence as an Absolute is impossible, so God is limited…

Edited yesterday at 05:36 AM by integral

[Leo Gura]

Yup. God is limited in that it cannot destroy itself. Deal with it.

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura God is an infinite feedback loop.

Nothing is truly lost.

Creation and Destruction are inseparable. 

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yup. God is limited in that it cannot destroy itself. Deal with it.

God can't do many other things. He can't create a world without suffering, nor can he create a world as he would like because he doesn't want anything specific. He is the drive of being, not an architect with a plan. It is the creative energy that makes its way. It doesn't know what it is going to create since it is not an entity that knows things. It is the power of reality unleashed that organizes itself into the most perfect patterns and continues building forms upon them until it collapses and starts again. It is an eternal supernova that collapses into a black hole and from it explodes into a big bang until it collapses again. God is not conscious; consciousness arises in God.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

God is not conscious; consciousness arises in God.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

 

You always say: "Consciousness is dreaming reality for love." Well, this means that consciousness is an actor performing an action for a reason, then it is aware of it. From this, it follows that there is premeditation, a planning of the dream before becoming aware of it. This means that before dreaming it, you were already aware of the dream, then the dream already existed 😅 Do you see the impossibility of this, of the creation?

Let's see. You equate reality with consciousness, meaning that what you are not aware of is not real. The functioning of your liver is not real, nor are the ocean tides if you are not witnessing them. You would agree that what we consider "I" is the band of consciousness that is occurring; you do not consider "I" to be what your neighbor's dog is perceiving. So your deduction is: the neighbor's dog only exists in my imagination and when I am looking at it, since existence = consciousness = me.

Okay, fine. Are you aware of how you are creating reality? No, because, like God, you have hidden this fact to live a human experience. Well, if it is hidden, according to the previous reasoning, it does not exist 😅 Obvious, right?

And if it does exist but you are not aware of it, then there must be infinite other things you are not aware of. And if that is the case, then there is an infinite unconscious reality, from which it follows that reality is independent of consciousness. Consciousness is just an emergence within reality, no more significant than anything else.

Yes, for you, it has all the significance because you are the band of consciousness that appears. But that is not the reality; it is a facet of reality. Since reality is infinite, consciousness will arise infinitely, which means it is infinite, but unconsciousness is also infinite.

Paradoxical? Not really; it's just infinity. In other words, if there are infinite cats, does that mean there are no dogs?. But the important thing here is not that. The important thing is that consciousness is not God.

God is infinitely unconscious and infinitely conscious, and His nature is not conscious creation but spontaneous existence, expression of it's infinite potential, concious or not, and there consciousness appears. The difference is fundamental.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:32 AM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You always say: "Consciousness is dreaming reality for love." Well, this means that consciousness is an actor performing an action for a reason, then it is aware of it.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Consciousness IS Love. It doesn't need any human type of motives or being an actor or reasons.

Love just means Consciousness is ONE.

Quote

Consciousness is just an emergence within reality, no more significant than anything else.

No.

You are confusing being-conscious and levels of being-conscious with Consciousness as the one substance.

Consciousness is the one "substance". How conscious it is, is variable. Even if it is not conscious of anything it is still Consciousness.

Unconsciousness is not its own thing. It is just like a TV screen in the off position.

Edited yesterday at 11:20 AM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Even if it is not conscious of anything it is still Consciousness.

If consciousness isn't conscious of anything, or is conscious of something, it means that that something is something other than consciousness. The fact that consciousness always exists doesn't mean that consciousness is reality, but rather that it is an emergence from reality. Any emergence within an unlimited framework is unlimited, so consciousness always exists, and we identify with it because it's the most obvious. But consciousness isn't the substance of reality; it doesn't create it, it perceives it. But there is infinite unperceived reality. That's fundamental difference because means that there is not a intentional creator but an inevitable expression of the absolute. 

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Unconsciousness is not its own thing. It is just like a TV screen in the off position.

A turned off screen TV is still a living quantum universe

[Breakingthewall]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness IS Love.

How? Conciousness is the perception of love. You could say that I'm not awake that's why I don't understand it, but what I think is that identifying consciousness with the creative force of reality is to anthropomorphize reality, since we are absolutely identified with consciousness and equate lack of consciousness with nonexistence.

There is an unconscious universe within us as real that the conciouss. To abandon oneself completely to reality means to abandon the need to be conscious, which is the need for control. The idea of a conscious creator God is an idea of control.

Reality only has one control: what is possible raised to the infinite power. Any possibility that is not absolutely synchronous with the infinite nature of the absolute is not possible. And consciousness perceives some of these infinite possibilities, then infinite possibilities , but not all. Herein lies the paradox: you can perceive infinite cats and no one dog.

 

 

[QVx]

On 29/03/2025 at 3:41 AM, Terell Kirby said:

Leo is really blowing my mind as of late -

‘You can’t defeat God with ‘x’ because ‘x’ is God’

x could be:

• science
• logic
• rationality
• religion
• atheism
• the Devil/Satan
• evil space monkeys
• Donald Trump 
• piles of cash
• corruption of all kinds
• skepticsm
• empirical evidence/ logical proofs
• Power/Sex

Can go on and on to infinity-anything we point to-there goes God. Reality must bend the knee God, which is to say God can only bend the knee to itself.

Thanks for explaining the obvious, because genuinely I couldn’t wrap my head around what ‘ontological tautology’ was.

The statement seemed so obvious, so clear and simple, that I just couldn’t believe it was that; even though I knew it was that.

Crazy how it all works!